The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reverberated across the globe, including across social networks in the Middle East and beyond. Internet users with varying follower counts have voiced support for both sides for weeks, shaping a public debate that spans sports, politics, and workplace ethics. Notably, high-profile footballers with international clout have weighed in, such as Karim Benzema, a former Real Madrid striker who now plays for Al-Ittihad in the Saudi Pro League. A tweet condemning the bombardments of Gazans drew a veiled accusation from a French minister, labeling him as potentially linked to terrorism.
Gradually, less famous or anonymous voices have also shared their perspectives on the conflict and its real-world consequences. In workplaces around the world, including the United States, critics and supporters of the Palestinian cause have faced professional repercussions, with concerns about how social posts might affect employment. Could similar outcomes occur in Spain? What risks might arise when an employee posts opinions for or against a party on social media?
Spanish courts have long grappled with the balance between freedom of expression and the limits of what a company can sanction or terminate for statements made at work or in personal online spaces. Freedom of expression and ideological rights are core constitutional protections, yet not every remark qualifies as protected speech. Commercial and organizational interests can sometimes constrain expression when it conflicts with a company’s obligations or its public image.
Not all firms respond to political expressions from their staff in the same way. For instance, the case of Banque Chaabi du Maroc involved a Madrid manager who participated in a protest addressing the Moroccan government and supporting Rif citizens. After a profile photo was seen at the workplace, the employee posted on Facebook, asking, “Are you the government or a criminal gang?” The bank moved to file a complaint alleging reputational damage and later dismissed the employee. In a July ruling, the Constitutional Court noted that neutral employers generally cannot demand more from employees than what the employment contract requires, underscoring that a company serving a neutral role cannot police personal opinions beyond agreed duties.
In other words, unless a company’s founding purpose is to promote a specific ideology, employees typically retain freedom to express personal political views without a mandatory alignment to management’s stance. When a firm’s mission is tied to an ideological objective, the situation shifts. The Republic of Turkey’s decision to reinstate a worker after dismissing them for expressive acts linked to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict illustrates how courts weigh corporate ideology against individual expression. A firm whose central aim is to advocate for a state’s interests might lawfully dismiss an employee who tweets in favor of the opposing side, provided the employer proves that the conduct violated core organizational values.
The distinction between opinion and insult
Some social media users present their viewpoints with data, reflection, and respectful discourse, while others express opinions in ways that belittle or threaten those who disagree, sometimes wishing harm. The line between opinion and insult can be pivotal in court when a company considers firing an employee for political expressions.
There are numerous documented cases of companies disciplining or terminating staff whose online remarks harmed the firm’s reputation. For example, an ambulance company sanctioned a driver for posting videos on TikTok criticizing company practices. In Catalonia, the regional court sided with the worker, ruling that the content did not cross into insult and was protected as a form of expression.
Conversely, insults can cross a line. In October 2022, Asturias courts found it appropriate to dismiss an employee who wore a company polo while describing customers as certain offensive terms. The judges emphasized that while criticism and opinion have a place, repeated insults toward customers damage the company’s public image and its relationship with the general public, including named individuals.